Post navigation

The Watering Hole; Friday April 4 2014; Headlines

Sometimes the headlines say it all. Following are a handful of news ‘headlines,’ links included, that just sort of showed up within the last few hours. E. Pluribus Fiveum (or something close to that. Curiously, there’s not much need to read beyond the headlines, as each pretty much spouts the obvious. No surprises, I guess, but still one’s gotta ask: WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE IN AMURKKKA? How far into the mire can we sink — before we die?

That little feller is my grandson. He’s already a week or two past four months of age, and even though he’s cool as a cucumber, little does he know that already he’s doomed to have to deal with, as he grows older day by week by month by year, each and every shred of the STUPIDITY!! embedded in each and all of those headlines above. One can only dare wonder why that is? What the [add favorite expletive here] is wrong with US, with We the People?

On the other hand and in backward glance, yep, I was born just shy of eleven months after Pearl Harbor, and the day I took my first breath there were thousands dying on Guadalcanal, thousands more in North Africa, and who knows where else. And when I was the same age as the little fella above — in early March, 1943 — I suppose the headlines weren’t a whole lot more encouraging than any of them are today.

The beat goes on.

Brings up one more question. The Biggie. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH US?? Seventy-plus years down the road and WE are still as STUPID as WE were the day I took my first breath? I mean, really . . . etc.

Yeah, well, OK, so it snowed here today. Crappy weather. No bike ride. Tomorrow? More of the same, or so they say. Cabin fever. Grrr.

But all that aside, it’s time to change things. It’s time to put each and all of the human IDIOTS out to pasture, and then rebuild civilization. I suggest we aim for a world where there are no more wars, no guns, no bombs; a world where stupid politics are ‘fracked’ once and for all, where each and every life form on the planet is allowed enough space, enough ‘nature’, to live, to prosper — a world where all billionaires wake up broke and then jump off the tallest building available.

And in the process, I suggest that we who proclaim ourselves to be of more use than a fossilized rat stand tall, grab the bull by the tail, and then grimace and gripe sufficient to finance the education of those little folks (see above) who are already here, also those yet to come. Maybe then if WE succeed in elevating education a few orders of magnitude above our current course . . . maybe, just maybe, THEN . . . there will be NO MORE REPUBLICANS! EVER!

Yeah, OK, so I get carried away. But you get my drift, right? RIGHT???

How in the bloody hell did I become a troll topic? For the record, I am not offended by references to the FSM because I understand satire, nor am I hurt by the characterization of religious beliefs as insane. To a non-believer any religion’s beliefs and practices appear insane, some of the things professed by sects within my own religion appear insane to me. We have no evidence for things we perceive by faith, so they are by definition irrational. Christian beliefs come under greater scrutiny because we live in a country in which a vocal minority wish to impose a narrow interpretation of our ancient texts upon others by force of law, while neglecting the central tenet of our faith. Now that’s insane.

Fifty years ago, give or take a couple, Jack, one of my college Roomies was both an avowed atheist AND an avowed enthusiast for nearly every premise spouted by the original Wingnuttistan, the John Birch Society (one of whose charter members was, iirc, the father of today’s infamous Koch Brothers). Jack spent hours and hours trying to figure out what it was about religion that so captivated people, what it was that allowed so many to believe so strongly in something for which not a single shred of supportive evidence was available anywhere. His conclusion was as simple as it was impossible: “Faith. We have to find a way to get rid of faith.”

I lost touch with Jack in the late sixties as we each headed off in our post-college directions, and have no idea how or if he dealt with the consequences of the ultimate “merger” of far right politics with the Christian evangelical/fundamentalist movements. My best guess, though, would be that neither his religious nor political viewpoints have changed. I suspect that if he and I should once again run across each other with time for chat, we’d still both be in full agreement in re religion and would dismiss the topic quickly, after which we’d argue till the beer ran out on matters of politics, but there would be none of the ‘fear’, none of the “hatefulness” toward anyone of faith as proposed by our recent troll.

In fact, my suspicion is that even today, the only time atheists or nontheists might appear to “hate” people of faith is when said faith is intrinsically bonded to far right fascist-style politics . . . when those now so-called “Christianistas” try to use their politic to impose their religious views on everyone else. My guess is that it’s safe to suggest that “Inquisition” remains grossly unpopular. Or, as Outstanding put it,

Christian beliefs come under greater scrutiny because we live in a country in which a vocal minority wish to impose a narrow interpretation of our ancient texts upon others by force of law, while neglecting the central tenet of our faith. Now that’s insane.

OIMF:
It’s great that you aren’t offended by having your faith attacked and mocked, which is of course, satire. I’m not offended either, because their opinions would have to matter to me to be effective. Would you, however, be ok with posting comments attacking the faith of a Muslim believer, for whom you have some affection, based upon “satire?” Not in the way that believers joke with each other or how African Americans call each other the N word. It’s different when someone who isn’t in the same group makes the jokes, isn’t it.

That’s the question. How can one mock the sincerely held beliefs of someone, practically to her face. Maybe the answer lies in the unanswered question of whether they would make the same comments in the same room with you, or if they need the anonymity of the internet.

Zooey
on April 3, 2014 at 11:54 pm said:
“Outstanding in My Field is a fine woman…” EXACTLY! and yet, YOU have no problem attacking (satirizing, mocking, belittling) her faith in God (or the flying spaghetti monster, as you prefer.)

“… who possesses a brain she’s not afraid to use. She doesn’t carry around the victim mentality you do, and she’s had true horrors in her life, nor does she check common sense at the door.”

Yes, she does use her brain and does not check her common sense at the door, and yet she is a Christian and worships the deity that she believes is God and Jesus, the Son of God. But, in your words, she worships the flying spaghetti monster.

You throw that in the face, day in and day out, of someone that you like. It’s not hard to believe, then, that you are able to be hateful to those that you don’t like because they don’t vote the way you do. It’s just very hypocritical to then ask how others can be so hateful. There is your answer about the hate.

You still don’t get it, do you dntx16. Freedom does indeed imply the right of anyone to believe in anything that one finds appealing. And most would agree that such is the way of life, and most of even opposite belief find no harm in accepting the fact that others may see the world differently.

And that works quite well . . . UNTIL those of differing belief first DEMAND and then try to MANDATE that ALL OTHERS ACCEPT, HEED, OBEY, AND “KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!”

That’s what’s called a line in the sand, and all it ever manages to do is piss people off. You’re a Christian? Fine. I see your belief in similar fashion to that described by Thomas Jefferson when he said, “If my neighbor believes in twenty gods or no gods, it does not pick my pocket or break my leg and therefore it’s no harm to me.”

But understand that Jefferson also was well aware of the other side of that same coin, as he clearly pointed out when he wrote: “Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the ‘wall of separation between church and state,’ therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”

Therein lies the message: STOP each and every “Christianista” attempt to IMPOSE their beliefs on everyone else, and the odds are pretty damn good that we can all find the means to get along. Knock off the right wing religionista attacks on contraception, abortion, on homosexuality, on gay marriage; learn to live and let live. Remember, if you don’t believe in contraception, or in abortion, or in gay marriage, no one is demanding that you participate. Au Contraire — the problem is the reverse, the demand by ‘believers’ that everyone else follow THEIR rules. Screw that. It’s that kind of crap that brings out “hatefulness,” and for damn good reason,

Betch all of my bitcoins (o.k., none) that, in true broken troll fashion, it is going to right back tot he beginning (o.k., FINE — it never left the beginning, it just keeps repeating itself over and over becasue it thinks it is so superior… what is that again.. oh, yeah, “Smug self-righteousness.”).

And I would like to engage it, but all it is doing is whining. It needs a time out.

Jefferson lived in a time when people did try to force others to participate in religion. No one tries to force you to participate.
If you think an innocent person is being murdered, would you try to stop it? That’s the position of pro life activists. They think a person is being killed and you hate them for that? I think abortion is murder, but accept that the majority of our population accepts it. I don’t hate abortion providers or those who have abortions, I just disagree with them.
If religious organizations have a religious opposition to contraception ( I do not), they shouldn’t be forced to pay for contraception. I don’t hate them, I just disagree with them. I don’t think they should be forced to provide something that goes against their beliefs just because I happen to disagree with them. There are other ways to provide contraception than by forcing people to violate their religious beliefs.

If a business owner wants to impose his/her religious beliefs on employees and customers; I have a suggestion. Declare your business a non profit church, charge cost for your wares and eliminate your competition, accept a living wage, and funnel any remaining profit to charitable activities. That way you can hire whoever you want and impose whatever religious rules you wish.

“Jefferson lived in a time when people did try to force others to participate in religion. No one tries to force you to participate.”

Right. And no one is working anywhere to demand that women submit to what many see as nonsensical religious-based premise either. Right? Uh huh.

“If you think an innocent person is being murdered, would you try to stop it? That’s the position of pro life activists.”

I’d like to see the second amendment repealed and all guns confiscated — that would reduce the murder rate substantially. Where are the “pro life activists” when it comes to ridding the country of the instruments of mass death of real people? As for abortion? It’s legal (Roe v. Wade), and it’s only “murder” in the eyes and minds of right wing “Christianistas,” to use your word. No one demands anyone have an abortion; if you don’t want one, don’t have one. But do NOT try to impose your religious beliefs on others. It’s really quite simple.

“I don’t hate abortion providers or those who have abortions, I just disagree with them.”

As noted above, if you don’t agree, then don’t participate.

“If religious organizations have a religious opposition to contraception ( I do not), they shouldn’t be forced to pay for contraception.”

Under the ACA, “religious organizations” are not required to pay for contraception. I disagree with that premise, but understand the undercurrent. Were it up to me, there would be NO exceptions for any religious organizations on any plane whatsoever. In fact, if it were up to me they would each and all be taxed appropriately based on income. Religion is personal, and any attempt to impose any shred of religious belief on policy on anyone else is a travesty. Period.

Religion has no place in the public sphere. It’s personal, and belongs only to the individual. It’s a private matter only, and any attempt to impose even a fragment of any given religious belief or practice on anyone else is pure travesty. Slavery revisited.

Is the number of dollars the US Government spends on Religious Organizations equal to zero? No, In 2004, the Bush issued an Executive Order giving $3.7 billion to be doled out to faith-based and other religious organizations. So a non-believer’s taxes go to religious organizations which I believe is a forced participation.

“If religious organizations have a religious opposition to contraception ( I do not), they shouldn’t be forced to pay for contraception.”

The US government for the last 50 years has a failing grade in practicing the separation of state and religion. And Republican’s love to point out the dreadful practices of Muslim run governments and even spread fear over Sharia Law in the US when that is exactly the direction the Republican’s want to take the US.

Outstanding. One wonders what happens when the first Muslim business decides to ban women from entering the shop uncovered – it’s a ‘sincerely held religious belief’ after all. Or maybe a Jewish women’s clinic decide to use the Torah as a guide for when life begins and allows abortion up to the point that the baby’s head crests? It is after all a ‘sincerely held religious belief’. It is a Pandora’s box of unknown impact. Practically speaking it is totally unworkable.

Even if valid, the cattle exhibited normal learning behavior and herd instinct. The idea that it’s akin to PTSD is self-serving in that whomever wrote the article goes on to use anecdotal evidence to relate stress from wolf attack to reduced weight gain and pregnancy rates.

The goal is, of course, simple: to encourage total destruction of wolf populations everywhere. As a NM rancher noted prior to the reintroduction of the Mexican Gray in AZ and NM, “Them wolves is killers.” That remains the thesis everywhere, esp. amongst the rural folks, most of which know nothing about anything other than what they’ve been “taught” by their own local interests. If there are cattle about, then “wolves eat cattle” and we gotta get rid of them. If there are no cattle, then ‘wolves kill deer, and elk, and antelope, and all them critters what’s fun to hunt, so we gotta git rid of them damn wolves.’

I know I’ve mentioned it before, but when an AZ cowboy told me the reason he hated wolves was “because they kill cows,” to which my response was, “Yes, I know that, my only question is do they kill ENOUGH of the damn things?” Silence.

Wolves remain one of the most fascinating critters out there anywhere, and they’re clearly far more intelligent than huge piles of humans. No wonder they’re so hated. As Ebb noted just the other day, Farley Mowat nailed it in his book “Never Cry Wolf” when he spelled it out:

“We have doomed the wolf not for what it is but for what we deliberately and mistakenly perceive it to be: the mythologized epitome of a savage, ruthless killer — which is, in reality, no more than the reflected image of ourself.”

Wonder if anyone’s done a study of what cows think whilst on their way to the slaughter house? There couldn’t be PTSD, of course, but are they able to figure out that by early next week, they’ll be cut into small pieces and on display in supermarkets everywhere?

I’m thinking that if I were a bovine, I just might prefer to deal with wolves, and definitely NOT cattle ranchers.

The bees aren’t doing much better than the wolves thanks to Monsanto.
Want to learn how meaningless humans are to nature?
Study the bees.
They will teach you.
Bear in mind you cannot teach a bee but, they will teach you.

Yes. Ask the bees. Or ask the Monarch butterflies — if you can find one. Humans are, indeed, meaningless to/in nature. And try as I might, it gets trickier day-by-day to find much if any ‘meaning’ in humans via any context other than “destroyer” of most everything useful, even if only ‘beauty’ might appear to be the sole cosmic assignment.

Awww, man. I know this is a tiny little blog, but why do we have to have the bargain basement troll? And even at that, this one is broken. Damn. I KNEW getting the “knock-off'” troll was going to be a bad idea… shoulda went with a name brand…

Whatever he thought he saw in that man’s soul, he has failed to capture.
Disclaimer: I cannot paint this well, though judging by the displays at my son’s high school, a large number of people in America can paint at least this well. Sadly, those paintings have no audience beyond the doting parents.

I don’t know and am not qualified to judge, but I feel sorry for the guy. I suspect he never had any audience beyond the doting parents. They had enough power and capital to place him in positions he was never qualified for, supplied him with what they thought were competent advisers and had to watch him take the blame for heeding the advice of people whose motives he was not sophisticated enough to understand. He probably would have been happier managing a Hobby Lobby in Texas.